"Power gamer" hate?

[Mr Beer]

If the system doesn't make dumping a mental stat negative enough, then that is a fault of the system. For example in Savage Worlds, a low smarts makes it harder to learn smarts related skills (even persuasion since charisma isn't a normal stat), they are also more susceptible to tricks and to powers that call for a smarts check. "Dumping" smarts is bad for your character both in combat and out of combat. You don't need to add on additional role-playing hindrances to that (those are things you actually take for a mechanical effect). How most people describe role playing low mental stats would be the equivalent of a major hindrance in Savage Worlds, which would gain you the equivalent of a feat (you can only start with one major hindrance, any more you develop are just downsides).

It's only in some builds of D&D where a fighter doesn't notice a real mechanical difference between 8 and 3 int.

^^^

Yes, a good system penalises dump stats, if a system does not do that, there is an imperative for players to min/max, because why wouldn't they?

[Nifft]

^^^

Now I have to go a whole page back if I want to see what you're snarking about.

Quote button is helping friendly button. Please click warmly.

[gooddragon1]

TL/DR Questions:

1. I have noticed more than a few people who have this really strong disgust for "power gamers"...DnD Youtubers, forum people, randos I met at the LFGS...they hate power gamers. Am I the only one who notices this? What is the motivation behind this sentiment?

2. When does optimization become "power gaming?"

3. What is the alternative to "power gaming?"

1. Grinding the game all the way down to meta choices for maximum efficiency is for computer games where tournaments happen. Imo.

2. When one player completely stomps an encounter with very little input from the other players because of carefully honed and customized meta options. A mailman sorcerer. An uber charger. A whirling frenzy orc barbarian with lion spirit totem even qualifies for this in some cases. Especially if they use obscure stuff and optimization knowledge to squeeze out much more damage than appropriate. If a player is very good at optimizing then they should likely be able to look at the party composition and know what would be more in line and how to scale it back.

3. A gentlemans agreement between the players and the DM to tone it back. If a player realizes that their druid is doing too well they can just change their spell selection to more healing and change out their animal companion. The problem happens when a player doesn't realize what they are doing is hurting the game or they just don't care. I don't like thinking about those sorts of situations (I don't remember being in one, but I've heard that they happen).

Imagine playing mtg with cards from the junk box at your mtg store. Now imagine an arms race bidding war to get a powerful card just before a tournament at the pro tour.

This is the difference between a gentleman's agreement and a competition. Imo, d&d shouldn't be an arms race and you aren't trying to beat the other players.

[LordEntrails]

Yes, a good system penalises dump stats, if a system does not do that, there is an imperative for players to min/max, because why wouldn't they?

Imperative? Yea, no. Maybe some players, depending upon their personality, might feel they have to min/max. But the system, the game, and the world sets no such requirement.

[JNAProductions]

Imperative? Yea, no. Maybe some players, depending upon their personality, might feel they have to min/max. But the system, the game, and the world sets no such requirement.

To a point.

Let's say the difficulty of what you do scales, typically by approaching ever-harder challenges. A Jack-Of-All-Trades type character might work early on, when the challenges are easier. They aren't as good as a specialist, but they haven't fallen so far behind as to be unable to contribute. But, let's skip ahead to the endgame. Suddenly, the challenges that the JoAT had a 40% chance of doing and the specialist a 50% chance, has changed to 5% and 75%. They didn't minmax, and they're paying for it.

Now, being someone who enjoys powerful characters myself, I am perfectly willing to acknowledge there's a degree of moderation that must be used. To use D&D as an example, I'd be perfectly fine with any character built with 27 Point Buy. But let's say there's a custom point buy in place, and you have the following stats:

Strength	Dexterity	Constitution	Intelligence	Wisdom	Charisma
3	18	14	3	18	3

Before racial mods and you're playing a Monk? I'd probably tell you to be less min-maxy. A LOT less min-maxy.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that there's no issue with min-maxing, IN MODERATION. Building a character to be good at a few things, decent at most, and bad at others is fine. Taken to the extreme, such as being overwhelmingly good in three areas, and utter garbage at the rest... not so much.

[Chaosticket]

Okay um please stop explaining the Awesome.

See Im probably the closest person to be a Munchkin here so Im telling you when you have Standard Barbarian #12980 and compare what is basically a Superhero people are probably going to pick the Superhero.

The difference is WHY. Is is for power? Is it be interesting?

Personally I encourage people to use non-standard rules so you dont get the same thing people have been using for 40 or so years. Be a pirate, multiclass, focus on a detailed backstory, but (and Im quoting a drink here) BE NOT BLAND.

Power Gaming can be bland easily. Choosing things for practical reasons means you will get too complacent rather than going outside your comfort zone.

At the same time, well I do blame the game. Personal decisions are disconnected due to mechanical rules. I liked pre-3.0 Dungeons and Dragons when there were few skills. It meant you didnt have to make dice rolls for every possible action.

[Mr Beer]

Imperative? Yea, no. Maybe some players, depending upon their personality, might feel they have to min/max. But the system, the game, and the world sets no such requirement.

Yeah, you're right 'incentive' then, it only creates an imperative in certain types of groups.

Point is, if you build an incentive into the system to min/max by not penalising low stats, you are creating a problem if min/maxing is viewed as aesthetically displeasing but there are no mechanics to address the issue.

[Guizonde]

To a point.

Let's say the difficulty of what you do scales, typically by approaching ever-harder challenges. A Jack-Of-All-Trades type character might work early on, when the challenges are easier. They aren't as good as a specialist, but they haven't fallen so far behind as to be unable to contribute. But, let's skip ahead to the endgame. Suddenly, the challenges that the JoAT had a 40% chance of doing and the specialist a 50% chance, has changed to 5% and 75%. They didn't minmax, and they're paying for it.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that there's no issue with min-maxing, IN MODERATION. Building a character to be good at a few things, decent at most, and bad at others is fine. Taken to the extreme, such as being overwhelmingly good in three areas, and utter garbage at the rest... not so much.

good argument, but i feel it is only applicable to pretty competitive or optimized play. most roleplayers on these boards post that their characters and campaigns (the in-person ones anyway) are a lot less high-op than the pbp ones. jacks have a place not only in the early levels, but most importantly in my eyes as force multipliers. to recount an encounter with my team that happened 3 weeks ago, here's the composition:

Spoiler: the team

Show

bard: low op jack, focused on social skills and support
inquisitor: high-op jack, low-op inquisitor, focused on everything but the "nice social skills"
cleric: low-op healbot
monk: mid-op ki-focus, build comes online next level iirc
oracle: very high-op casting focus, str as a dump stat
paladin: fighting focused, mid-op

we had a chasm to cross, needing a dc 20 acrobatics check. before you ask, no we didn't have flight capabilities which would have helped. for the monk and inquisitor, that meant rolling a 6+ a 2+ respectively. for the bard, a 14+, and without a nat 20, the rest of the party couldn't cross. we built a rope bridge. the bard buffed the monk and the inquisitor, who proceeded to string rope on both sides of the chasm, allowing first the oracle and the cleric to cross. the bard buffed as much as possible the paladin (who had a -18 modifier to acrobatics), the monk used a ki point to assist in the crossing, and the inquisitor gave another situational bonus. by the end of it, we all managed to cross. the paladin proceeded to stomp on everything but the kitchen sink in the dungeon, occasionnally helped out by the inquisitor and the monk giving the pally free aoo's and easier dc's to beat.

we had fun, and felt like a team. were i to post the team composition in a "critique my build" thread, i'd probably give optimizers a seizure at the difference in power level in the group and the stupid choices made in character creation.

now i'm not debating the fact that jacks lose out to specialists in dnd. a wizard will always outperform rogues and skill-monkeys. what i am debating is when the usefulness of a jack is lost, and i argue that a good jack doesn't try to solo anything, but pushes its team to levels of competence never before achievable. i'm less worried about an uber-wizard as i am by a good wizard with a bard that knows its mission behind him.

[Rhedyn]

If we're talking about 3.x it's possible to be the best at everything, which technically makes you a jack of all trades.

But that system is where things like a "power gamer" cause the most problems and groups tend to address that with House rules, the most common house rule being, "don't power game", which is a soft rule, but most of us aren't take designers so it's the best we can do to patch the system.

[LudicSavant]

If we're talking about 3.x it's possible to be the best at everything, which technically makes you a jack of all trades.

But that system is where things like a "power gamer" cause the most problems and groups tend to address that with House rules, the most common house rule being, "don't power game", which is a soft rule, but most of us aren't take designers so it's the best we can do to patch the system.

This is basically it. Analyzing options and attempting to choose the best available option is standard procedure for strategy games at large; in fact, it's the core gameplay loop of said games. However, a skilled player can't pick the actual most optimal options they can identify in 3.5e without making the game unplayably broken. So you basically have to just make a soft agreement that people will not take the actual best options in the game (barring a DM with sufficiently high game knowledge to accurately ban said options). Later editions are less wildly unbalanced than 3.5e, but that's not saying much (it's a really low bar to get over).

It is however worth noting that this is a flaw with the game's design, not a flaw with a player's first inclination to be doing what's just... well, normal behavior for all strategy games.

[Corneel]

This is basically it. Analyzing options and attempting to choose the best available option is standard procedure for strategy games at large; in fact, it's the core gameplay loop of said games. However, a skilled player can't pick the actual most optimal options they can identify in 3.5e without making the game unplayably broken. So you basically have to just make a soft agreement that people will not take the actual best options in the game (barring a DM with sufficiently high game knowledge to accurately ban said options). Later editions are less wildly unbalanced than 3.5e, but that's not saying much (it's a really low bar to get over).

It is however worth noting that this is a flaw with the game's design, not a flaw with a player's first inclination to be doing what's just... well, normal behavior for all strategy games.

So maybe don't approach a role-playing game as a strategy game? Start with a character concept and look for options that fit with that concept and remain internally coherent, as well as externally coherent (in relation to the campaign world and the other characters).

[PhoenixPhyre]

So maybe don't approach a role-playing game as a strategy game? Start with a character concept and look for options that fit with that concept and remain internally coherent, as well as externally coherent (in relation to the campaign world and the other characters).

Another issue is approaching a role-playing game as if it were a competitive game. I see those analogies a lot, and they're misplaced. But I agree about keeping things character focused. If power results, fine. If it doesn't, fine. As long as the party's ok with the level of power.

What bores me about "power gamers" (in quotes because it's only a small fraction of them) is the tendency to evaluate everything in purely mechanical terms, discounting the feel or the fluff. That's how you get every wizard looking the same (within a couple small categories), every martial being an ubercharger (a slight exaggeration) or other such things. If mechanics are all that matters, you're throwing away anything that's even slightly "sub-optimal" in the quest for MO POWAH! And that bores me.

The only time I'd actually object, though, is when one player starts forcing the campaign to warp around their character specifically. This happens both with under-optimizing (when the DM has to scramble for ways to allow your character to contribute despite not being up to the standard of the rest of the party) or with over-optimizing (when things that challenge you are insurmountable to the rest of the party) or with outright refusal to engage ("I don't want to go adventuring. I'm happy being a shopkeeper." in a game about adventuring, for example).

[LudicSavant]

So maybe don't approach a role-playing game as a strategy game?

If you don't want any strategy gameplay, D&D probably isn't the system for you, because a huge proportion of its game design is devoted to designing a strategy game, and a huge proportion of the time in its published adventure paths is taken up by strategy gameplay. If you don't want to engage with that at all, then there are much better systems to choose.

Start with a character concept and look for options that fit with that concept and remain internally coherent, as well as externally coherent (in relation to the campaign world and the other characters).

You can do all of that while still playing a strategy game. This is starting to sound like Stormwind Fallacy territory, where you think you can only do one or the other. Optimizers frequently optimize within the constraints of a desired concept. In fact it's what pretty much all optimizers do in 3.5e (I don't think I've ever heard of any skilled optimizer actually trying to play the literal most powerful character they could at a table, because I've never heard of anyone trying to actually play Pun-Pun).

[PhoenixPhyre]

If you don't want any strategy gameplay, D&D probably isn't the system for you, because a huge proportion of its game design is devoted to designing a strategy game, and a huge proportion of the time in its published adventure paths is taken up by strategy gameplay. If you don't want to engage with that at all, then there are much better systems to choose.

But the "strategy gameplay" envisioned in D&D is very different, with different imperatives and "win conditions" than in a competitive strategy game. Thinking of your character as a game piece, to me, robs the entire game of its point. If you want a strategy game with faceless pawns, there are plenty of war games out there. See? It goes both ways.

[LudicSavant]

Thinking of your character as a game piece, to me, robs the entire game of its point.

Well, at this point you're basically saying that you believe that doublethink is required to play the game properly.

I on the other hand do not feel any special need to pretend that dice, rulebooks, character sheets, and so forth are not pieces of a game any more that acknowledging that a book is printed on paper prevents me from enjoying a novel.

If you want a strategy game with faceless pawns, there are plenty of war games out there. See? It goes both ways.

It does not in fact go both ways. You are creating a false dilemma, by suggesting that in order for something to be a strategy game, the pawns must be faceless.

But the "strategy gameplay" envisioned in D&D is very different, with different imperatives and "win conditions" than in a competitive strategy game.

I said it was a strategy game, not a competitive one. Or is this another false dilemma where you seem to think that strategy games are necessarily competitive?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well, at this point you're basically saying that you believe that doublethink is required to play the game properly.

I on the other hand do not feel any special need to pretend that dice, rulebooks, character sheets, and so forth are not pieces of a game any more that acknowledging that a book is printed on paper prevents me from enjoying a novel.

Wait, I think we're misunderstanding each other. To me, treating an RPG as a strategy game is to think in terms of mechanics first--not "is this how my character would think" but "what's the best move for this piece to make". In optimization terms, that might mean ignoring the character's concept or background or history to pick up the "best" ability--having that (hypothetical) frost mage man of ice and snow who wants to chill everything take a big fire spell because the numbers are slightly bigger. Or importing a PrC from a different setting, ignoring all the "fluff" requirements because you only want the core mechanical goodies.

To me, those detract from the point of the game that's different from what you can get in a board game, namely exploring fantastic worlds through the lens of a character organically part of that world. Yes, they're represented mechanically, but the mechanics are there merely as a guide to translating the character's world to our own and vice versa. They are not the character, nor are they the important things. They're tools, to be used as necessary and discarded when inconvenient. I could use thousands of systems to explore the same world or even use a hybrid of them. The rules are tools, nothing more. I don't play the rules, I play the character using the rules as a starting point for a framework.

Edit in response to your edit: I was responding to what I saw as a false dichotomy with another false dichotomy. Hence the "goes both ways" comment.

[LudicSavant]

Wait, I think we're misunderstanding each other. To me, treating an RPG as a strategy game is to think in terms of mechanics first--not "is this how my character would think" but "what's the best move for this piece to make". In optimization terms, that might mean ignoring the character's concept or background or history to pick up the "best" ability--having that (hypothetical) frost mage man of ice and snow who wants to chill everything take a big fire spell because the numbers are slightly bigger. Or importing a PrC from a different setting, ignoring all the "fluff" requirements because you only want the core mechanical goodies.

I've been playing D&D for almost 30 years, and I have never, ever seen a skilled optimizer at one of my tables ignore a character's concept, background, or history to pick up the "best" ability. In fact, despite frequently playing in games with people who straight up write theoretical optimization treatises and class guides and post builds and so forth, I have never seen them actually pick any of the best abilities in 3.5e, despite having full knowledge of what they are (basically, Pun Pun. Or a few of the other things on the CharOp Campaign Smashers thread from back in the WotC board days). In fact I have never even heard of someone attempting to choose the literal best options in 3.5e (Pun-Pun and co) in an actual game, despite being active in online roleplaying forums for decades.

This sounds like a boogeyman that doesn't actually exist (or, at least, is exceedingly rare). Instead, what I actually see happen is that optimizers impose limits on the options available to them (either for obvious balance concerns or for conceptual reasons) and then optimize to make that character concept be the best version of that character concept that they can be, intentional weaknesses for flavor reasons and all. And those players are absolutely playing a strategy game each and every time they decide that using one ability will have a greater chance of surviving an encounter than another... even if they sometimes overrule that strategic analysis on those occasions that it would conflict with their character's personality. But usually? The strategic decision and the in-character decision line up, because characters are in the very same situation the players are: Trying to survive and beat the monsters, or successfully solve the mystery, or whatever. And to beat the monsters or solve the mystery or infiltrate the castle and not have a TPK in any campaign where there's more than just the illusion of challenge, you have to solve decision trees... which is pretty much the definition of playing a strategy game. And if someone wants to get on a high horse and puff out their chest and say that they're above trying to figure out how to infiltrate the castle or solve the mystery, then... I just have to wonder why they think that's a virtue. Not wanting to engage with the gameplay doesn't make you a better roleplayer.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Phoenix, I've been playing D&D for almost 30 years, and I have never, ever seen a player at one of my tables ignore a character's concept, background, or history to pick up the "best" ability. In fact, despite frequently playing in games with people who straight up write theoretical optimization treatises and class guides and post builds and so forth, I have never seen them actually pick any of the best abilities in 3.5e, despite having full knowledge of what they are (basically, Pun Pun. Or a few of the other things on the CharOp Campaign Smashers thread from back in the WotC board days). In fact I have never even heard of someone attempting to choose the literal best options in 3.5e (Pun-Pun and co) in an actual game.

This sounds like a boogeyman that doesn't actually exist (or, at least, is exceedingly rare). Instead, what I actually see happen is that players impose limits on the options available to them (either for obvious balance concerns or for conceptual reasons) and then optimize to make that character concept be the best version of that character concept that they can be, intentional weaknesses for flavor reasons and all. And those players are absolutely playing a strategy game each and every time they decide that using one ability will have a greater chance of surviving an encounter than another... even if they sometimes overrule that strategic analysis on those occasions that it would conflict with their character's personality. But usually? The strategic decision and the in-character decision line up, because characters are in the very same situation the players are: Trying to survive and beat the monsters, or successfully solve the mystery, or whatever. And to beat the monsters or solve the mystery or infiltrate the castle and not have a TPK in any campaign where there's more than just the illusion of challenge, you have to solve decision trees... which is pretty much the definition of playing a strategy game.

Then explain the majority of the optimization threads on this very forum. Where the intent is to "break the game" or "humiliate the DM" or "make an OP X". And all the comments which say (paraphrased) "that's just fluff, you can ignore that." Or "play a wizard, fighters/barbarians/etc suck" (which may be true but it's a mechanics focused mindset).

As I said, I have no problem with being powerful. I only have problems with people intentionally taking steps to cause problems for the table, in this context by obviating another player's character or by intentionally being a drag. There are lots of other ways to do that as well that aren't immediately relevant.

I, personally, have no interest in mechanics or "strategy gaming." I want to see how my character changes the world and how the world changes them. Mechanics are only relevant to that end. They're a means, and a disposable one at that. I'd be happy doing free-form (which is how I started as a kid for many years). The character comes first, even if that means doing something "stupid." Or not choosing a better spell when a more thematic one works well enough and would be what the character would chose. Winning, losing, competition, challenge, these are all foreign to me as a player. I want to see what happens next, to see how this evolving story plays out. Move-countermove gameplay (what I've heard called 5D chess) bores me, in part because it's fake. The DM could win whenever he wants to. In that sense, it's all the illusion of challenge. It also means that only a few character concepts can even participate.

[Chaosticket]

If we're talking about 3.x it's possible to be the best at everything, which technically makes you a jack of all trades.

But that system is where things like a "power gamer" cause the most problems and groups tend to address that with House rules, the most common house rule being, "don't power game", which is a soft rule, but most of us aren't take designers so it's the best we can do to patch the system.

Dont Power Game is so vague its inane.

How about using actual examples.
#1 Primalist archetype for the Bloodrager in Pathfinder RPG.
#2 the Leadership feat.
#3 crafting feats
#4 Spells in general.

Guides for RPGs rate the quality and just by thinking of advice makes you a Power Gamer.

You shouldnt even any choice in anything. The Game Master should make all characters and all decisions.

[LudicSavant]

Then explain the majority of the optimization threads on this very forum. Where the intent is to "break the game" or "humiliate the DM" or "make an OP X". And all the comments which say (paraphrased) "that's just fluff, you can ignore that." Or "play a wizard, fighters/barbarians/etc suck" (which may be true but it's a mechanics focused mindset).

I suppose I should clarify that I've never seen someone who is skilled enough at optimizing to actually know what the best options are (Pun-Pun et al) actually choose to play one of those options (I've never seen nor heard of someone actually playing Pun-Pun at the table). I have seen inexperienced and unskilled players pick something "to be OP and mess with the DM" but they've all been laughably weak compared to what the old guard of the CharOp board could come up with, without exception. Plus, I tend to boot such immature players from my tables pretty quickly (or, more accurately, never invite them to the game to begin with, since I talk to prospective players before actually inviting them to a game).

As for "that's just fluff, you can ignore that," the context I usually see that comment in is "you can alter fluff to suit your needs, and don't need to think of pre-written fluff as a creative straitjacket." Which is actually good roleplaying advice. You don't wanna be one of these guys: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html (Don't do what Elan is doing in this comic!)

For "play a wizard, fighters suck" again the context matters. If someone is asking what character classes are powerful, then it's a perfectly appropriate and factual answer, and doesn't involve anyone ignoring a character's already-existing concept, background, or history.

For "break the game" again the context matters. I know some of the people who post in theoretical-op and post infinite loops and stuff... and those people will have a lot of fun talking about breaking the game but won't actually play those builds at the table.

If someone wants to humiliate the DM, that's obviously a big problem that has little to do with whether or not they're an optimizer.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I suppose I should clarify that I've never seen someone who is skilled enough at optimizing to actually know what the best options are (Pun-Pun et al) actually choose to play one of those options (I've never seen nor heard of someone actually playing Pun-Pun at the table). I have seen inexperienced and unskilled players pick something "to be OP and mess with the DM" but they've all been laughably weak compared to what the old guard of the CharOp board could come up with, without exception. Plus, I tend to boot such immature players from my tables pretty quickly (or, more accurately, never invite them to the game to begin with, since I talk to prospective players before actually inviting them to a game).

As for "that's just fluff, you can ignore that," the context I usually see that comment in is "you can alter fluff to suit your needs, and don't need to think of pre-written fluff as a creative straitjacket." Which is actually good roleplaying advice. You don't wanna be one of these guys: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html

When it's a prerequisite for entry into a PrC, no you can't just alter fluff unilaterally to suit your needs. Nor is it right to get annoyed by DMs who put the kibosh on that practice. The idea that DMs should run a blacklist (everything printed is legal unless explicitly disallowed, regardless of setting) instead of a whitelist (options are disallowed unless allowed explicitly or by reference (all content from source X)) is a problem for me. Because it focuses the play on digging through material to find the "best" (by whatever standards) mechanical material, disregarding the setting or the context, instead of building a character organically in a setting.

On a side note, the idea that all characters in universe get this giant scroll that lists their options whenever they gain a level (so they can see that hey, that's a better spell/feat/class/etc), which is necessary to justify the "well, any competent person would pick X" mentality I see a lot, is a major verisimilitude break. It's an abstraction leak of the highest order. The mechanics represent the character, not the character the mechanics. A researcher into fire magic isn't likely to become an expert in summoning specific outer-planes entities, even though it's probably more powerful. That's a basic problem I have with D&D's a la carte mechanics (everything separate with no prerequisites other than raw power), especially spells. But that's a separate topic.

Edit: I want to make it perfectly clear that being mechanics-forward is not wrong. It's not something I like, but it's a valid way to play. I'll just play somewhere else if that's how you want to play, just like I'll play somewhere else if you want to be super graphic about your kills or want to play an evil campaign.

[LudicSavant]

the idea that all characters in universe get this giant scroll that lists their options whenever they gain a level

What the heck are you even talking about?

[PhoenixPhyre]

What the heck are you even talking about?

It's the only way I've been able to make sense of the discussions on optimizing NPCs--people assume that they know about all of the options, no matter how obscure. Which, in my mind, is like an MMO-style "ding" event and a UI letting them see their options. The idea that "all competent X prepare A, B, and C and have items Q, R, and S" (where A, B, C and Q, R, and S aren't even found in the setting in question by default) seems to demand that somehow they know all their options instead of growing more organically. Sure, it would be "more optimal" if everybody who could learned a few wizard spells. But most people don't want to/aren't exposed to/aren't aware that it's even a possibility. The big burly guy takes Tough, not because it's best but because it represents his big burliness. The fire mage learns fire, bigger fire, biggest fire even though its decidedly sub-optimal compared to summon X or summon bigger X. Because he doesn't care about summoning, he cares about fire.

Players get to know the options, because it's easiest/best from a game standpoint. But that's a purely meta, game thing, not something available to characters in-universe. So criticizing a setting because "it makes more sense that they'd all do Y" is silly because it requires knowledge the fictional characters can't have.

But that's why it's a side point. It's an implied mental picture on my side that causes me issues.

[Chaosticket]

What the heck are you even talking about?

Characters gain things without actual practice. For example can become proficient with a weapon youve never even seen.

Wizards and other spellbooks dependent classes have to at least take a test to learn new spells. Other benefits are instant an inexpicable.

Its that games are games, not realistic. You dont practice swimming, or lift weights.

There was the Inquisitor RPG where all gains had to be practiced and explained.

[LudicSavant]

Characters gain things without actual practice. For example can become proficient with a weapon youve never even seen.

Wizards and other spellbooks dependent classes have to at least take a test to learn new spells. Other benefits are instant an inexpicable.

Its that games are games, not realistic. You dont practice swimming, or lift weights.

There was the Inquisitor RPG where all gains had to be practiced and explained.

Okaaay... but this has nothing to do with anything in the quote that PhoenixPyre put that comment under. As he himself said, it's a "side point." To such an extent that I have no idea why my post is even quoted at all.

[Satinavian]

Players get to know the options, because it's easiest/best from a game standpoint. But that's a purely meta, game thing, not something available to characters in-universe. So criticizing a setting because "it makes more sense that they'd all do Y" is silly because it requires knowledge the fictional characters can't have.

Humans are really good at imitating each other and technology travels extremely fast.

If some way to do things is clearly superior, nearly everyone interested in doing this thing will adopt this way.

That is not the same as "everything exists in every setting" but stuff that does exist should be used by NPCs as efficiently as by PCs. If not, that would require a good reason.

[Pelle]

I, personally, have no interest in mechanics or "strategy gaming." I want to see how my character changes the world and how the world changes them. Mechanics are only relevant to that end. They're a means, and a disposable one at that.

I think you can have both. For me, the fiction is most important, but I also highly value the game part. For me when playing, being challenged is what is fun. And it's not winning that's important (powergaming), but rather being challenged, which IMO can combine both fiction and mechanics. And it is not using the mechanics themselves, it is engaging with what is going on in the fiction and using the mechanics that represent that and also keeps the game aspect. So to me the fiction is absolutely important, but I want to focus the session in-game time on when the characters are trying to overcome challenging obstacles to reach their goals.

So when I design content for my games, I try to have an eye on both something that makes sende in the setting/fiction and also that there are some interesting game elements. I don't necessarily know the answer to how to best approach the scenarios, but if there is one obvious easy approach I find it a bit boring. Seeing how the PCs approache and handle the situations is what is fun. And whether the PCs achieve what they want or not isn't important, as long as they are actually trying.

D&D is also mostly a gamist system (with mostly associated mechanics), so using it without any game consideration is kind of pointless. Some players don't mind the 15 min work day when that makes sense in the fiction, because they don't care that they are not challenged and just want to be immersed and experience an evolving story. I find it boring however, and much more fun when you are changing the world in situations where you also have to balance your resources strategically.

[MeimuHakurei]

I've been playing D&D for almost 30 years, and I have never, ever seen a skilled optimizer at one of my tables ignore a character's concept, background, or history to pick up the "best" ability. In fact, despite frequently playing in games with people who straight up write theoretical optimization treatises and class guides and post builds and so forth, I have never seen them actually pick any of the best abilities in 3.5e, despite having full knowledge of what they are (basically, Pun Pun. Or a few of the other things on the CharOp Campaign Smashers thread from back in the WotC board days). In fact I have never even heard of someone attempting to choose the literal best options in 3.5e (Pun-Pun and co) in an actual game, despite being active in online roleplaying forums for decades.

This sounds like a boogeyman that doesn't actually exist (or, at least, is exceedingly rare). Instead, what I actually see happen is that optimizers impose limits on the options available to them (either for obvious balance concerns or for conceptual reasons) and then optimize to make that character concept be the best version of that character concept that they can be, intentional weaknesses for flavor reasons and all. And those players are absolutely playing a strategy game each and every time they decide that using one ability will have a greater chance of surviving an encounter than another... even if they sometimes overrule that strategic analysis on those occasions that it would conflict with their character's personality. But usually? The strategic decision and the in-character decision line up, because characters are in the very same situation the players are: Trying to survive and beat the monsters, or successfully solve the mystery, or whatever. And to beat the monsters or solve the mystery or infiltrate the castle and not have a TPK in any campaign where there's more than just the illusion of challenge, you have to solve decision trees... which is pretty much the definition of playing a strategy game. And if someone wants to get on a high horse and puff out their chest and say that they're above trying to figure out how to infiltrate the castle or solve the mystery, then... I just have to wonder why they think that's a virtue. Not wanting to engage with the gameplay doesn't make you a better roleplayer.

I want to print this out and frame it in a canvas. It's mainly inexperienced players who throw around accusations and try to go against the group/DM/players (on either side of the screen) while also not actually making gamebreaking characters even if the damage numbers seem impressive. Also, you can very much act like a munchkin through roleplaying, like describing your actions such that you're always trying to use skills off of your highest attribute, arguing with "realism" or "logic" why a certain action should've succeeded/failed, the good old "It's what my character would do" and so on.

As for character weaknesses and strategic misplays: Nobody is the ultimate optimizer or perfect strategist; people will do things like positioning suboptimally, spend too much on finishing an opponent, avoid an AoE even if the ally in the affected area would've been fine and so on. Similarly, most people don't think of everything and may find themselves lacking an option/statistic to overcome a certain problem. That said, there are some strategic decisions that are much more about personal decision making rather than optimizing (find and rescue people in a collapsing building instead of bailing immediately, taking a penalty with your attack rolls to use nonlethal force against enemies, protecting an object precious to the character etc.), which of course are valid choices.

[Guizonde]

Dont Power Game is so vague its inane.

How about using actual examples.
#1 Primalist archetype for the Bloodrager in Pathfinder RPG.
#2 the Leadership feat.
#3 crafting feats
#4 Spells in general.

Guides for RPGs rate the quality and just by thinking of advice makes you a Power Gamer.

You shouldnt even any choice in anything. The Game Master should make all characters and all decisions.

*because of your post, i actually looked at the primalist archetype. holy carp, that is broken beyond belief. to wit, a bloodrager can replace his bloodline power by two barbarian powers he qualifies for, every time he gains a bloodline power. i don't know who wrote that archetype, but it's so easily abused there must be a typo in there.
*the leadership feat is a lot of work and is the reason why most dm's don't allow it. theoretically it's powerful. in practice, it sucks the fun out of playing the game. you're playing pen and paper, not micro-managing a real-time-strategy game. my dm allows me to use it right now, and believe me, both him and me are laissez-faire about it precisely to speed up the game (also, because i don't abuse it like i could. it was a gag choice).
*crafting feats can be broken, but they come online at higher levels, and a friend did try to measure the time it would take to build some things without shenanigans. i think i remember 18 months of non-stop work for an item costing 200,000 gp. you have to break the system if you want to have an adventuring crafter (think pocket dimensions, time-stops, and other timey-wimey things).
*saying that spells are broken is akin to saying a truenamer is broken. we know it is, but we play the game anyway.

you really should have put your last sentence in blue. i encountered dm's on power trips, and yeah, they were kind of like that, but seriously, nobody plays with them.

[Rhedyn]

I strongly believe that the G is an important part of RPG. There is RP and there is the Game aspect too. They are supposed to marry together.

I don't believe you can shun the G part without losing out on much of the fun of RPGs. I feel that such people are better served with pure RP systems without real conflict resolution.